Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Further grievance of the applicant is that 8 officers in the respondent-Ministry who were junior to him had been promoted as Scientist G, and some others who were more than five months junior to him were promoted as Scientist F on 27.09.2001, because of which, subsequently both of them had got promoted as Scientist G on 20.12.2012 and 30.12.2013 respectively under FCS. He has also pointed out that apart from these, six other officers, who are junior to him by 4 = years, were also promoted as Scientist G under FCS with effect from 06.09.2012, but for the reasons best known to the Administration, even though he was senior to all of them, his case had not been considered for assessment. He also submitted that one of the 6 applicants of OA No.4098/2011 in Dr.Mohd. Asrarul Haque (supra) was promoted to the grade of Scientist F from the grade of Scientist E on 29.03.1995 along with the applicant, but now, while the case of Dr.Mohd. Asrarul Haque has been considered for promotion as Scientist G, based on the order of this Tribunal, the case of the applicant has not been considered.

The modified ACP as approved for Central Government Civilian Employees would also be applicable to Scientists covered under FCS. This is expected to provide an alternate channel of development for Scientists and is expected to maintain the rigours of assessment required for assessment under FCS.

14. It was submitted that his request for such 3rd financial upgradation under MACP was considered favourably, and through order dated 30.01.2013, Annexure R-4, he had already been granted MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs.10000/-, i.e. Grade Pay of Scientist G post. In regard to the previous occasions, it was submitted that his FCS assessment to the grade of Scientist G could not be assessed by the DSC, due to non-availability of his ACRs for the relevant residency period, because he had not submitted the duly filled in ACR Forms, with his resume, to the concerned Reporting Officers, for assessment of his performance in the grade of Scientist F for the concerned residency period. In support of this contention, the respondents had produced through Annexure R-6 (Page 162 of the Paper Book) minutes of the meeting of the Department Screening Committee, in which it was recorded that his case could not be considered due to non-availability of his ACRs. It was pointed out that the applicant had submitted his ACRs formats in respect of periods from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2003 and 01.04.2003 to 16.09.2003 only on 13.09.2006 to Dr. V.Rajgopalan, Chairman Central Pollution Control Board, who then entered his remarks in the capacity of Reporting Authority only on 16.04.2007.

25. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 06.12.2013, and more or less reiterated his contentions, as raised in the OA, and had denied the contentions raised by the respondents in the counter reply. He had again submitted that consideration of his case to the grade of Scientist E under FCS was delayed by 15 months from the due date of eligibility from 01.01.1994, and that he was assessed for promotion to the grade of Scientist F from 01.01.2000, whereas he should have been assessed from 01.01.1999, the due date of his FCS eligibility, as already described in detail above. He had again claimed for antedating of two in situ promotions of Scientist E and Scientist F on the basis of due dates of eligibility under FCS, and had assailed the action of the respondents in not having considered his case, even though six other officers, junior to him in the grade of Scientists, were considered and promoted as Scientist G in proper time. It was reiterated that since he has been denied uniform application of residency period by the respondents in implementation of the FCS, due to which, he had to suffer delay of 30 months from the due date of eligibility for his two promotions, and his case has not at all been considered for the next higher grade of Scientist G in time, in spite of his fulfilling all the criteria required for promotion. He had submitted that he had given representations regarding his claim for promotion from the grade of Scientist F to Scientist G under FCS from the due date, but no action has been taken on those representations, and pending consideration of his claim under FCS, when an alternative request was made by him for grant of 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, that has been granted to him, since modified FCS Scheme has been made applicable in respect of the Scientists covered under the FCS for the purpose of promotions, but MACP benefits are granted to those who have not been granted promotion under the FCS. His grievance was reiterated that while the residency period for FCS is five years, the MACP is granted after completion of 10 years in a particular grade, and the Scheme further states that MACP is only a financial upgradation, involving only change of Grade Pay, and does not entitle the applicant for change of designation also to Scientist G.

26. He had shifted the blame for non completion of his ACR/APARs on time onto the respondents, who ought to have ensured timely completion of ACRs/APARs which they had not done, because of which, his case could not be assessed for FCS by the DSC. It was further submitted that the DoP&T OM dated 17.07.2002 referred to by the respondents is not relevant in his case, as he had submitted his ACRs/APARs for the relevant residency period, well in time, and their completion was later not ensured by the respondents, while it is the duty of the Reporting/Reviewing Officers to ensure that the reports in respect of their Subordinate Officers are completed by them in time. He had submitted that his case is not of retrospective promotion, but is only for the antedating of his two in situ promotions, from the grade of Scientist E to the grade of Scientist F from the due date of eligibility, and the consideration of FCS promotion to the grade of Scientist G from the due date of eligibility. He had claimed that the Honble Apex Courts order in Dr. S.K.Murti (supra) covered his case also, and that the benefit of the same had not been provided to him by the respondents, for reasons best known to them. It was submitted that that Dr. Md. Asrarul Haque, who was promoted as Scientist F on the same date as the applicant, had been considered for FCS promotion as Scientist G, while even though the applicant is senior to him, his case was not considered for FCS assessment. Other contentions raised in OA were repeated once again, and it was submitted that the request for grant of financial upgradation under MACP had been made by way of only an alternative prayer, due to consideration of his promotion under FCS having been kept pending by the respondents. Therefore, he had prayed for that OA be allowed.